DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassidy, UK Patent GB 2,122,505A in view of Crowther, US Patent 11,470,985.
Cassidy discloses a device including a mount (11, 30, 36) including a detachable mount portion (36) and the mount further including a base clamp (11). However, Cassidy discloses the base clamp being a threaded adjustment-type clamp. Crowther teaches within the analogous art of stroller attached apparatus, the use of a spring-loaded base clamp (104) for attachment of an apparatus to a stroller or other structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a spring-loaded base clamp as taught by Crowther with the apparatus of Cassidy so as to allow for single-handed adjustment and placement of the clamp onto the stroller. Such modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Cassidy further discloses with respect to claim 1 that the detachable portion includes a camera mount (36). It is noted that a camera would be capable of being mounted to the detachable portion of Cassidy and the claim limitation designating the mount as a camera mount does not impart any additional specific or definite structure with respect to the mount being a camera mount.
Regarding claim 2, Cassidy further discloses the toy is a steering wheel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roddenberry, US 11,137,104 cited to show the known state of the art with respect to mounting structures.
George, US 2,408,388 cited to show the known state of the art with respect to texture applied to steering wheels to improve grip.
Rothbardt, US 2,446,721, Solomon, US 2,486,219 and Braude, US 2,455,887 are cited to shown the general state of the art in detachably mounted steering wheel toys.
Goeller, US D1,010,427, Alberstein et al., US D921,095 and Paterson et al, US D833,511 are cited to show the general state of the art of mounting brackets.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY BERONA whose telephone number is (571)272-6909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KIMBERLY BERONA
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647